I don't believe everyone has the right to do literally whatever they want. I believe the only limit to your negative rights is the point at which your actions would violate the negative rights of another person. You can spit all you want as long as you don't spit on me or mine.

Private owner A fairly purchased and owns his land, which includes the headwaters of a river.
He dumps his shit and trash in the river, which negatively effects anyone downstream.

In other words, Door is an Amish-Atheist.

Quote from: eggsalad on November 05, 2015, 03:21:11 PM

Quote from: Διομήδης on November 05, 2015, 03:17:59 PM

I don't believe everyone has the right to do literally whatever they want. I believe the only limit to your negative rights is the point at which your actions would violate the negative rights of another person. You can spit all you want as long as you don't spit on me or mine.

Private owner A fairly purchased and owns his land, which includes the headwaters of a river.
He dumps his shit and trash in the river, which negatively effects anyone downstream.

Those downstream have some options.

They can build a filter to keep his shit out.

They can talk to private owner A and ask that he cease his activity. From here they can agree to go to an independent conflict-resolution organization and figure it out from there.

If private owner A refuses to cooperate, they will do what they need to to keep his shit out of their segment of the river, maybe dam it up.

Violence isn't necessary here and if anyone downstream assaults owner A he is right to defend himself.

It would be smart for everyone who controls a segment of the river to sit down with the others and write out a contract addressing these matters.

So basically owner A is allowed to detriment others and everyone as a whole has to play around it?

Why exactly should those downriver not violently solve this problem if owner A refuses to compromise? It seems that leaving owner A alone causes a lot more net suffering than confiscating his land and detaining him. Sure breaking owner A's consent may be a negative consequence, but so to is everyone having to deal with a toxified river.

What I want you to explain is why you think that owner A's consent is inherently more valuable than the quality of life of others.

Quote from: eggsalad on November 05, 2015, 03:29:18 PM

Quote

The social stigma surrounding an act is enough. However effective violence and coercion may be at stopping undesirable behavior, they are morally reprehensible and undesirable in their own right.

This seems like a really awful society to live in. The populace doesn't magically come to others defense all the time. What kind of fantasy world is it where mob justice is fair, reasonable, and effective? Were the lynch mobs the epitome of fair society?

Democracy itself is a form of mob justice, that's what I'm arguing against. What is democratically-imposed law other than a lynch mob sending specially-trained men with body armor and badges to do the lynching?

Ostracism and social stigma do not require violence, and those who try to use violence to impose their ideals and desires should be ostracized themselves if they survive their assaults on other people.

I think it's pretty obvious that a society like what I advocate needs everyone to be on the same page regarding human rights. That's why I know it won't happen in my lifetime. Maybe someday, maybe never. But it is feasible, and far more morally upright than any society that exists or ever has.

Government exists BECAUSE people can't be expected to be moral and considerate in behavior.

Quote from: eggsalad on November 05, 2015, 03:35:04 PM

Quote from: Διομήδης on November 05, 2015, 03:28:50 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on November 05, 2015, 03:21:11 PM

Quote from: Διομήδης on November 05, 2015, 03:17:59 PM

I don't believe everyone has the right to do literally whatever they want. I believe the only limit to your negative rights is the point at which your actions would violate the negative rights of another person. You can spit all you want as long as you don't spit on me or mine.

Private owner A fairly purchased and owns his land, which includes the headwaters of a river.
He dumps his shit and trash in the river, which negatively effects anyone downstream.

Those downstream have some options.

They can build a filter to keep his shit out.

They can talk to private owner A and ask that he cease his activity. From here they can agree to go to an independent conflict-resolution organization and figure it out from there.

If private owner A refuses to cooperate, they will do what they need to to keep his shit out of their segment of the river, maybe dam it up.

Violence isn't necessary here and if anyone downstream assaults owner A he is right to defend himself.

It would be smart for everyone who controls a segment of the river to sit down with the others and write out a contract addressing these matters.

So basically owner A is allowed to detriment others and everyone as a whole has to play around it?

Why exactly should those downriver not violently solve this problem if owner A refuses to compromise? It seems that leaving owner A alone causes a lot more net suffering than confiscating his land and detaining him. Sure breaking owner A's consent may be a negative consequence, but so to is everyone having to deal with a toxified river.

What I want you to explain is why you think that owner A's consent is inherently more valuable than the quality of life of others.

The non-aggression principle is something that should be used reasonably, not dogmatically. You've not made it clear what's happening to the river here. Is owner A pissing and shitting downstream or is he dumping toxic waste? If what he's doing is endangering or damaging other people or their property, they can do what they have to to protect themselves after diplomatic options are exhausted or made impossible. If he's doing something trivial, it would be outrageous to assault him. Whatever solution you follow, you are going to have to go out of your way. Building a dam or shooting owner A both take effort. But the social consequences of shooting owner A will likely outweigh the cost of damming up your segment of the river- not even addressing the inherent dangers and chance you'll get yourself killed.
 I don't take the NAP to its logical conclusion- if I did I'd be saying you could attack someone for projecting light waves onto your yard or something. I'm not.

Further, net suffering or net happiness is a retarded metric irrelevant to people who aren't utilitaricucks.

What happens when societal reaction to violence is minimal? Who enforces the idea that no one should be attacked if no one cares for owner A because of something arbitrary like his race, sexuality, religion, etc.

Quote from: eggsalad on November 05, 2015, 04:14:05 PM

Quote from: Διομήδης on November 05, 2015, 04:09:18 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on November 05, 2015, 04:02:47 PM

What happens when societal reaction to violence is minimal?

Statism. Again, strong objection to violence is a prerequisite for anarchy to exist in the first place. The society we live in reacts comparatively minimally to violence by my standards. If nobody sees a problem with "might makes right", we go back to where we started.

Quote

Who enforces the idea that no one should be attacked if no one cares for owner A because of something arbitrary like his race, sexuality, religion, etc.

Nobody enforces anything. That's the point. owner A has a right to defend himself from assault, lethally if need be. If owner A is killed and his killer is not rejected and ostracized, society has failed to reject violence and a new state probably isn't far from being established.

A society doomed to collapse when presented reality.

What reality?

Don't give me that Rousseau bullshit.

Any reality in which resources are not equally distributed perfectly. Egg's example was meant to show that hierarchies arise naturally when any person has any sort of perceived advantage over another. People aren't even born with equal physiological properties in this world, much less equal access to resources like water.

I honestly don't see what's going to stop me from imposing force in an anarchist society. If I'm not allowed to do such a thing according to your parameters of anarchism then it isn't really anarchism.

Door, bro, you think girls cry wolf now about rape? Let's see what happens when there's no real government authority to say otherwise and clear the man's record.

Amish style justice only works in Amish sized communities, and even then it's very unforgiving.

Quote from: Διομήδης on November 05, 2015, 03:37:49 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on November 05, 2015, 03:29:18 PM

Quote

The social stigma surrounding an act is enough. However effective violence and coercion may be at stopping undesirable behavior, they are morally reprehensible and undesirable in their own right.

This seems like a really awful society to live in. The populace doesn't magically come to others defense all the time. What kind of fantasy world is it where mob justice is fair, reasonable, and effective? Were the lynch mobs the epitome of fair society?

Democracy itself is a form of mob justice, that's what I'm arguing against. What is democratically-imposed law other than a lynch mob sending specially-trained men with body armor and badges to do the lynching?

Ostracism and social stigma do not require violence, and those who try to use violence to impose their ideals and desires should be ostracized themselves if they survive their assaults on other people.

I think it's pretty obvious that a society like what I advocate needs everyone to be on the same page regarding human rights. That's why I know it won't happen in my lifetime. Maybe someday, maybe never. But it is feasible, and far more morally upright than any society that exists or ever has.

Government exists BECAUSE people can't be expected to be moral and considerate in behavior.

You say that like government is something separate from people. How would the government possibly be moral and considerate when it's compiled of the people that are incapable of acting that way?